I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

I mean, I might be wrong but I think you're talking from hope rather than fact.

And before you start a No-true-scottsman fallacy, yes. They 'did' bring Black People and Hispanics into that calculation, for some reason the Extremist Conservative/Libertarian blogs always insist on leaving out minorities when creating those lists.

You have all of that, and the fact that the person whose arranging it seems to outright 'hope' that something like this will occur.

ravenshrike:The real question is whether the FBI will plant a shooter like at Kent State. All other concerns are rather secondary.

Yeah. If shooting just happens regardless, that's rather secondary.

It is highly unlikely that spontaneous shooting will break out among one of the most law abiding segments of the population. Thus the question of whether or not the feebs will try to plant an agent provocateur. Dangerous maneuver in the days of smartphones however. Not to mention all the media cameras that will be about.

I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

I mean, I might be wrong but I think you're talking from hope rather than fact.

And before you start a No-true-scottsman fallacy, yes. They 'did' bring Black People and Hispanics into that calculation, for some reason the Extremist Conservative/Libertarian blogs always insist on leaving out minorities when creating those lists.

You have all of that, and the fact that the person whose arranging it seems to outright 'hope' that something like this will occur.

People with concealed carry licenses are one of the MOST law abiding subsets of the population you can find. Open carriers are another, inasmuch as there are records for such things, which because most places with OC are not licensing such an ability but merely make it legal, there aren't. Those are the two categories of people going to be involved in this march. As for removal of subsets of the population, when the murder and victim numbers of said subset are almost equal to another subset 5 times it's size and the only major correlation is the subset category in question, there is a MAJOR fucking statistical anomaly which cannot be blamed on a tool unless you want to implicate said subset as subhuman and unable to control themselves.

ravenshrike:If Blacks kill five times as many people as whites we should disregard them

*ehem* I am of the belief that the Blacks/Hispanics just make up a lot of the American Lower class, and just as you don't disregard the lower class in Everything Else statistical, you don't disregard the lower class when they happened to be a different colour. Because their skincolour has fucking, nothing. To do with their ability to not shoot things. That is most likely tied to income/education.

And unless you want to argue that African-Americans and Hispanics have a genetically lower intelligence (Which I know you wont) You drive a moot point.

Britain have large amounts of lower class non-White Britt's in the densely populated cities in which a whole host of the stabbing/general violence is going on that you gun-control opponents like to bring up in contrast. So as such it would be intellectually dishonest to exclude minorities/lower income classes from statistics.

ravenshrike:It is highly unlikely that spontaneous shooting will break out among one of the most law abiding segments of the population.

So law abiding that they would willingly march armed into a place where being armed is forbidden by law and that they're encouraged to break any damn law they want if they think it's unconstitutional.

But hey, as long as they abide by that amendment...The One Amendment. TO RULE THEM ALL.

Thus the question of whether or not the feebs will try to plant an agent provocateur. Dangerous maneuver in the days of smartphones however. Not to mention all the media cameras that will be about.

Preparing the ground for false flag accusations already, I see...

Before anything even happened people are already trying to blame the government for whatever might. How messed up is that? Godwin alert, but would anyone except Neville Chamberlain be inclined to believe Hitler if he said "Oh but we're only going to cause a massacre if the Jews shoot first or maybe plant a mole"?

ravenshrike:If Blacks kill five times as many people as whites we should disregard them

*ehem* I am of the belief that the Blacks/Hispanics just make up a lot of the American Lower class, and just as you don't disregard the lower class in Everything Else statistical, you don't disregard the lower class when they happened to be a different colour. Because their skincolour has fucking, nothing. To do with their ability to not shoot things. That is most likely tied to income/education.

And unless you want to argue that African-Americans and Hispanics have a genetically lower intelligence (Which I know you wont) You drive a moot point.

Sorry, but there are no major correlations between the black/hispanic increased violence rate and income/education. Equivalent white populations, while slightly more murderous than richer white populations, do not kill at nearly the same rate. It is entirely culture driven, especially as rural black populations do not see said violence increase. Of course, one could argue that it is a combination of their culture as well as the welfare state. And the fact that the authoritarian assholes in this country have been encouraging malum prohibitum over malum in se laws with ever increasing fervor since Prohibition. However that discussion is a bit large in scope for this thread.

Thus the question of whether or not the feebs will try to plant an agent provocateur. Dangerous maneuver in the days of smartphones however. Not to mention all the media cameras that will be about.

Preparing the ground for false flag accusations already, I see...

The did it at Kent State, as well as Waco. I see no reason that they might not try again except that the ubiquitous increase of cameras and recording technology over the past 20 years makes such a thing much more likely to blow up in their faces.

ravenshrike:The did it at Kent State, as well as Waco. I see no reason that they might not try again except that the ubiquitous increase of cameras and recording technology over the past 20 years makes such a thing much more likely to blow up in their faces.

They apparently did it in Boston a few weeks ago too, and the Russians are in on it.

The problem is, if anything happens, there's no way a certain kind of people is going to let themselves be convinced that it was not a false flag, because all the evidence to the contrary will be "forged" and whoever has an alternative explanation of events will have been "in on it". Then that ends with said people asking for more evidence, then dismissing any evidence along the lines "Well naturally you'd say that!"

Then when the government goes "You know what, screw that, we have actual work to do", that's apparently "proof" that they were right all along.

Now I'm not saying any government is always right or anything, but I will say I could start thinking about a business venture of exporting food-wrapping products. Wouldn't make millions, but an extra 200€/month wouldn't be bad either.

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Note: I'm not talking about some "Spy" or "Agent" planted in the ranks. I'm talking one guy in the march who has a misfire and startles everyone else, giving the impression that they are being shot at by the government.

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Note: I'm not talking about some "Spy" or "Agent" planted in the ranks. I'm talking one guy in the march who has a misfire and startles everyone else, giving the impression that they are being shot at by the government.

What would happen then?

Corollary: Given that Kopesh has told his marchers to break whatever unconstitutional law they want, and to actually overwhelm the police, and that the march itself deliberately avoids abiding by regulations...what are the odds that such a shot could make the police think they are being shot at by the protestors?

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Note: I'm not talking about some "Spy" or "Agent" planted in the ranks. I'm talking one guy in the march who has a misfire and startles everyone else, giving the impression that they are being shot at by the government.

What would happen then?

Corollary: Given that Kopesh has told his marchers to break whatever unconstitutional law they want, and to actually overwhelm the police, and that the march itself deliberately avoids abiding by regulations...what are the odds that such a shot could make the police think they are being shot at by the protestors?

A very good point Asita. Balls in your court Ravenshrike.

IMO, if a Misfire on the Protestors side occurs, I'd say it'd be them to react to the gunfire first, then the police.

I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

I mean, I might be wrong but I think you're talking from hope rather than fact.

And before you start a No-true-scottsman fallacy, yes. They 'did' bring Black People and Hispanics into that calculation, for some reason the Extremist Conservative/Libertarian blogs always insist on leaving out minorities when creating those lists.

You have all of that, and the fact that the person whose arranging it seems to outright 'hope' that something like this will occur.

considering how most of the major cities in the northeast are among the worst crime offenders in the country (Chicago, Detriot, DC, Baltimore) I don't see how this is possible. Chicago alone is the homicide capital in the US. And sadly, the Northeast is probably the second most homogenous region in the US, and yet still suffers horribly from crime.

The only city in the South that has terrible crime (that I can think of) is New Orleans. As someone who has been to New Orleans, I can say that im not surprised. If I lived there I would murder someone too. The weather is atrocious (110 F, near 100% humidity). No joke, I would go batshit insane if I was exposed to that kind of weather for a long time.

I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

I mean, I might be wrong but I think you're talking from hope rather than fact.

And before you start a No-true-scottsman fallacy, yes. They 'did' bring Black People and Hispanics into that calculation, for some reason the Extremist Conservative/Libertarian blogs always insist on leaving out minorities when creating those lists.

You have all of that, and the fact that the person whose arranging it seems to outright 'hope' that something like this will occur.

considering how most of the major cities in the northeast are among the worst crime offenders in the country (Chicago, Detriot, DC, Baltimore) I don't see how this is possible. Chicago alone is the homicide capital in the US. And sadly, the Northeast is probably the second most homogenous region in the US, and yet still suffers horribly from crime.

The only city in the South that has terrible crime (that I can think of) is New Orleans. As someone who has been to New Orleans, I can say that im not surprised. If I lived there I would murder someone too. The weather is atrocious (110 F, near 100% humidity). No joke, I would go batshit insane if I was exposed to that kind of weather for a long time.

I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

(picture snipped here)

I mean, I might be wrong but I think you're talking from hope rather than fact.

And before you start a No-true-scottsman fallacy, yes. They 'did' bring Black People and Hispanics into that calculation, for some reason the Extremist Conservative/Libertarian blogs always insist on leaving out minorities when creating those lists.

You have all of that, and the fact that the person whose arranging it seems to outright 'hope' that something like this will occur.

considering how most of the major cities in the northeast are among the worst crime offenders in the country (Chicago, Detriot, DC, Baltimore) I don't see how this is possible. Chicago alone is the homicide capital in the US. And sadly, the Northeast is probably the second most homogenous region in the US, and yet still suffers horribly from crime.

The only city in the South that has terrible crime (that I can think of) is New Orleans. As someone who has been to New Orleans, I can say that im not surprised. If I lived there I would murder someone too. The weather is atrocious (110 F, near 100% humidity). No joke, I would go batshit insane if I was exposed to that kind of weather for a long time.

You'll notice states like NY and Illinois are below several southern states towards the top. I'm talking about the section of this page with the highest to lowest murder rates.

yes, and on the bottom of the chart are states with lax gun control laws.

Also, im not a fan of using statistics from biased sites. It would be like me using statistics from the NRA.

Also, as someone who has spent decades in NY state (specifically Western NY) let me tell you, it is not safe here, not by a long shot. People here are even afraid to walk in the suburbs at night in nice neighborhoods. Not to mention Niagara Falls and Buffalo are listed in the 100 most violent cities in the country. There are areas where cops are too afraid to go to because they will be shot on sight (the Fruit Belt as it is known).

Hell, Lockport, NY mayor had to declare "crime impact zones" and requested help from various law enforcement agencies to combat the rising drug crime.

Truth be told, Vermont, New Hampshire, and probably Maine would probably be well off crime-wise even if they banned guns or gave everyone ak-47s. They are economically well, they are one of the most homogenous states in the country (~90% white), and their population is more evenly spread out than most states. As such, they are probably missing most of the reasons why crimes are committed (gangs, poverty, drugs)

ravenshrike:The did it at Kent State, as well as Waco. I see no reason that they might not try again except that the ubiquitous increase of cameras and recording technology over the past 20 years makes such a thing much more likely to blow up in their faces.

The problem is, if anything happens, there's no way a certain kind of people is going to let themselves be convinced that it was not a false flag, because all the evidence to the contrary will be "forged" and whoever has an alternative explanation of events will have been "in on it". Then that ends with said people asking for more evidence, then dismissing any evidence along the lines "Well naturally you'd say that!"

Then when the government goes "You know what, screw that, we have actual work to do", that's apparently "proof" that they were right all along.

Now I'm not saying any government is always right or anything, but I will say I could start thinking about a business venture of exporting food-wrapping products. Wouldn't make millions, but an extra 200€/month wouldn't be bad either.

Yes, because of course you were supposed to infer from my post that all conspiracy theories are true. That is, of course, absurd. However, between the shots of a pistol prior to the rifle fire on the Kent State tapes and the staging of the Waco Raid by the dumbfucks in the BATFE as a funding stunt, as well as the disappearing door and evidence tapes from the FBI on the day of the assault on the compound after they took over from the BATFE, the idea that the government was not wholly responsible for the deaths that occurred in those two incidents is absurd.

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Note: I'm not talking about some "Spy" or "Agent" planted in the ranks. I'm talking one guy in the march who has a misfire and startles everyone else, giving the impression that they are being shot at by the government.

What would happen then?

"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Note: I'm not talking about some "Spy" or "Agent" planted in the ranks. I'm talking one guy in the march who has a misfire and startles everyone else, giving the impression that they are being shot at by the government.

What would happen then?

"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger.

Uh...no. Contagious shooting is a thing specifically because of the training.

I should also point out that training to become a police officer only lasts 3-6 months in most states. The police are not unfeeling robots that have had all emotion and bias beaten out of them. Don't expect them to act as such. If an officer believes that they're being shot at, they will, in all probability, shoot your ass.

I would like to also point out that New Hampshire and Vermont have extremely lax gun laws and have the the 2nd and 3rd lowest homicide rates in the country.

Generally all their crime stats are down in those two states. You act as if seeing two states with lax gun laws means guns don't cause crimes. But in fact both have lower gun ownership rates then many of those other states. There also isn't a severe prevalence of a gun culture there like there is in the south which is what I believe was being debated above.

You'll notice states like NY and Illinois are below several southern states towards the top. I'm talking about the section of this page with the highest to lowest murder rates.

yes, and on the bottom of the chart are states with lax gun control laws.

Also, im not a fan of using statistics from biased sites. It would be like me using statistics from the NRA.

Also, as someone who has spent decades in NY state (specifically Western NY) let me tell you, it is not safe here, not by a long shot. People here are even afraid to walk in the suburbs at night in nice neighborhoods. Not to mention Niagara Falls and Buffalo are listed in the 100 most violent cities in the country. There are areas where cops are too afraid to go to because they will be shot on sight (the Fruit Belt as it is known).

Hell, Lockport, NY mayor had to declare "crime impact zones" and requested help from various law enforcement agencies to combat the rising drug crime.

Truth be told, Vermont, New Hampshire, and probably Maine would probably be well off crime-wise even if they banned guns or gave everyone ak-47s. They are economically well, they are one of the most homogenous states in the country (~90% white), and their population is more evenly spread out than most states. As such, they are probably missing most of the reasons why crimes are committed (gangs, poverty, drugs)

Biased in that the webpage hates states that have the death penalty? These are statistical facts taken from the FBI which there are several links at the top to the FBI's crime database.

I'm sure NY is a very dangerous place but when you calculate in it's serious population the crime rate is much closer to the national average.

No one is in disagreement that gangs, poverty, and drugs affect crime stats. The issue is whether more murders are committed because a gun was in the hands of someone who got it relatively easily. Also as I stated for two of those states their gun ownership rates are relatively lower than many high crime states.

I also have an assumption, mind you it is an assumption that probably could never be verified. Long guns make up the majority of north eastern state's weapons. Most long guns serve a legitimate purpose in many people's eyes. This is because those states have a long tradition of hunting but not a long tradition of gun toting for the sake of gun toting. So as I stated to captain Chip the southern gun culture is different than what is experience by gun owners in the north and that is what is being discussed.

ravenshrike:"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

Notice you didn't answer the question.Lets just assume that, despite what you said, it does happen and the people do end up shooting contagiously.

Then What?

I'm just trying to get you to understand the possible hazards of having 1000's of armed people (Some with more training than others) march through a crowded urban area after making all the comments they have made.

So again, the question stands:

What would happen if one of these marchers opened fire on something and resulted in Contagious Shooting among the entire group?

Before you say it can't happen, keep in mind Murphy's Law: What can go wrong, will go wrong.

It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

How do you know? How do you know every single attendee is going to be responsible with their weapon? How do you know nobody is going to brandish? How do you know nobody is going to fire, or have a misfire? How do you know some high teenager isn't going to toss a firecracker "for the lulz" and make both sides erroneously believe a shot has been fired?

How do you know that? You don't. Yet you categorically dismiss any possibility of a member of the march, or a third party, to cause a situation, either willingly or unwillingly, that could escalate. Why? Why do you consider it impossible? Why does it have to be the government?

And do not bullshit me with the "responsible law abiding gun owners" hogwash, because you haven't backed up that one with a iotta of evidence, and it's hard to even consider that "responsibility" and "abiding by law" since this march is going to be illegal to begin with (like, no permit, carrying in an area where the law forbids it...)

You seem to have already decided that if anything happens, it will have been the government's fault. That is not how a rational mind works.

ravenshrike:"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

In the place this march is supposed to take place, open carry is illegal. Meaning all of the marchers will be breaking the law. Meaning it is the job of the officers to arrest every one of them and confiscate their weapons for breaking gun regulations. Meaning they are manufacturing a situation in which they are forcing officers to forcibly remove loaded weapons from thousands of people just so they can carry out their jobs. What sort of a person who claims they love their country and the safety of those within it so much creates that kind of a situation? Even if out of blind luck there isn't a single misfire or idiot in the crowd (something which you CANNOT at all guarantee, even if every single person in the crowd is completely level-headed), it is still an incredibly dangerous situation the police officers will have to approach one way or another.

The safest course of action might be for the officers to just leave them alone, but then what does that mean? That means the protestors have become the bullies. They won out because they intimidated their opposition into standing down. They created a mob big enough that it can't be stopped by anything but a bigger mob. Isn't that exactly the kind of tyranny they are supposedly fighting against?

What they are wanting to do is stupidly dangerous, and is completely hypocritical.

You'll notice states like NY and Illinois are below several southern states towards the top. I'm talking about the section of this page with the highest to lowest murder rates.

yes, and on the bottom of the chart are states with lax gun control laws.

Also, im not a fan of using statistics from biased sites. It would be like me using statistics from the NRA.

Also, as someone who has spent decades in NY state (specifically Western NY) let me tell you, it is not safe here, not by a long shot. People here are even afraid to walk in the suburbs at night in nice neighborhoods. Not to mention Niagara Falls and Buffalo are listed in the 100 most violent cities in the country. There are areas where cops are too afraid to go to because they will be shot on sight (the Fruit Belt as it is known).

Hell, Lockport, NY mayor had to declare "crime impact zones" and requested help from various law enforcement agencies to combat the rising drug crime.

Truth be told, Vermont, New Hampshire, and probably Maine would probably be well off crime-wise even if they banned guns or gave everyone ak-47s. They are economically well, they are one of the most homogenous states in the country (~90% white), and their population is more evenly spread out than most states. As such, they are probably missing most of the reasons why crimes are committed (gangs, poverty, drugs)

Biased in that the webpage hates states that have the death penalty? These are statistical facts taken from the FBI which there are several links at the top to the FBI's crime database.

I'm sure NY is a very dangerous place but when you calculate in it's serious population the crime rate is much closer to the national average.

No one is in disagreement that gangs, poverty, and drugs affect crime stats. The issue is whether more murders are committed because a gun was in the hands of someone who got it relatively easily. Also as I stated for two of those states their gun ownership rates are relatively lower than many high crime states.

I also have an assumption, mind you it is an assumption that probably could never be verified. Long guns make up the majority of north eastern state's weapons. Most long guns serve a legitimate purpose in many people's eyes. This is because those states have a long tradition of hunting but not a long tradition of gun toting for the sake of gun toting. So as I stated to captain Chip the southern gun culture is different than what is experience by gun owners in the north and that is what is being discussed.

eh, there are not many hunters here (NY). In fact, the deer population is running rampant here, to the point where it causes thousands of car accidents (and a few dozen deaths) every year just in our state. I think estimates puts the deer population at 1 million in NY. As such, I would guess that most guns are handguns. Of course we can not discount gun collectors. Now, compare this to my visit to the South where it seemed like every damn person I met was a hunter (probably because hunting and fishing are the only things to do down there).

Now if we are talking Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine I would agree with you. Those states are more.....outdoorsy, than the majority of NE states which tend to be heavily urbanized. Also those 3 states tend to lean farther to the right than most NE states. Those 3 states are kinda oddballs compared to the rest of the country for various reasons, some of which I mentioned in the previous post.

Now back to crime and NY. 4 out of 5 of the biggest cities in NY have very high crime (Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany). The only city that does not is NYC, whose crime rate is about 50% higher than the national average. Now don't get me wrong, that is pretty darn good considering the sheer size of NYC (8.7 million) and how NYC was one of the worst cities crime wise a few decades ago. Due to NYC size, they skew the results. How NYC got those results are also controversial. They tripled their police force. They also instituted various tactics such as cameras everywhere that would send even left leaning states into an uproar. They funded this new police force by basically funneling funds (and giving NYC specific benefits) from the rest of the state into NYC only causing the public sector (and the economy) in the rest of the state to suffer. The experts did not attributed the decrease in crime to anything related to guns. It was attributed to the increase in police force, tactics, and new abortion laws.

ravenshrike:"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

In the place this march is supposed to take place, open carry is illegal. Meaning all of the marchers will be breaking the law. Meaning it is the job of the officers to arrest every one of them and confiscate their weapons for breaking gun regulations. Meaning they are manufacturing a situation in which they are forcing officers to forcibly remove loaded weapons from thousands of people just so they can carry out their jobs. What sort of a person who claims they love their country and the safety of those within it so much creates that kind of a situation? Even if out of blind luck there isn't a single misfire or idiot in the crowd (something which you CANNOT at all guarantee, even if every single person in the crowd is completely level-headed), it is still an incredibly dangerous situation the police officers will have to approach one way or another.

The safest course of action might be for the officers to just leave them alone, but then what does that mean? That means the protestors have become the bullies. They won out because they intimidated their opposition into standing down. They created a mob big enough that it can't be stopped by anything but a bigger mob. Isn't that exactly the kind of tyranny they are supposedly fighting against?

What they are wanting to do is stupidly dangerous, and is completely hypocritical.

Pretty much this. Even if there aren't any idiots in the protest, teh cops will still have to do their job and execute the law. Potentially thousands of people having their guns confiscated, and at least some of those will be forcibly and the odds for a misfire are high. And this is coming from somebody who likes and collects guns as well as supports the 2nd. (Incidently it is from a semi-Socialistic beleif, that guns are the teeth of the proletariat.)

ravenshrike:"Contagious shootings" are bunkem. It's what happens when moronic cops with pisspoor training don't keep their fucking boogerhooks off the fucking trigger. As holding the weapons at a ready position would be considered brandishing, and is perfectly constitutionally illegal, none of the marchers will be doing so and that is not the point of the march. Since the weapons in question will not be held in a ready position, the probability of a "contagious shooting" on the part of the civvies is close to fucking nil. On the part of the popo however, well, could go either way.

In the place this march is supposed to take place, open carry is illegal. Meaning all of the marchers will be breaking the law. Meaning it is the job of the officers to arrest every one of them and confiscate their weapons for breaking gun regulations. Meaning they are manufacturing a situation in which they are forcing officers to forcibly remove loaded weapons from thousands of people just so they can carry out their jobs. What sort of a person who claims they love their country and the safety of those within it so much creates that kind of a situation? Even if out of blind luck there isn't a single misfire or idiot in the crowd (something which you CANNOT at all guarantee, even if every single person in the crowd is completely level-headed), it is still an incredibly dangerous situation the police officers will have to approach one way or another.

The safest course of action might be for the officers to just leave them alone, but then what does that mean? That means the protestors have become the bullies. They won out because they intimidated their opposition into standing down. They created a mob big enough that it can't be stopped by anything but a bigger mob. Isn't that exactly the kind of tyranny they are supposedly fighting against?

What they are wanting to do is stupidly dangerous, and is completely hypocritical.

teeeechnically the police job is to maintain social order. They would not arrest every single protestor as that would violate their mandate (ringleaders are another story). Just like they don't go after someone who stolen a car even if they have a GPS tracker on it because a car chase (especially a high speed one) violates their mandate. It is a similar argument as to why police are not required to protect you.

In all likelihood, the police will try to peacefully disperse them. While I think this whole thing is stupid, I don't see this so doom and gloom. And im a pessimist.

Nikolaz72:I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

WOW.. that's one of the more bigoted things I've read on this forum in a while. You think the south is nothing but Larry the Cable Guys with guns? Let's look at the top 10 cities in the US that you're most likely to be attacked in some way.

Nikolaz72:I might be wrong but, aint the South one of the most guncrime-ridden places in the US? Youknow, typically speaking. I believe I saw a Washington Post articles with comparisons to the Central/West/South with South being 2/3rds above them all. And the South are also the youknow, bigtime supporters of those there guns.

As far as I can see the gun-toting rednecks are some of the least law-abiding citizens when it comes to, well... Guns.

WOW.. that's one of the more bigoted things I've read on this forum in a while. You think the south is nothing but Larry the Cable Guys with guns? Let's look at the top 10 cities in the US that you're most likely to be attacked in some way.

I see these stats for my hometown (buffalo, NY) and I just want to cry.

There was a documentary called Nickel City Smile about some refugees who fled to Buffalo, and how they were shocked that this city was WORSE than their third world country homecity.

But hey, we have amazing food and cheap, beautiful old houses.....that counts for something right?

right?

I'm about a 45 minute drive away from Flint, MI. My mom grew up there, actually. Cruising through that place... it's just downright depressing. There are more boarded up buildings than there are open ones. Trash everywhere. I once saw a smoking tree stump... not sure what that was about. It scares me to think that the rest of the country is following this pattern and may soon end up like Flint.

ravenshrike:Yes, because of course you were supposed to infer from my post that all conspiracy theories are true. That is, of course, absurd.

Did he say that? I don't think he said that. I'm pretty sure he's saying there will always be people who say that event x was the government's fault, and interpret the impossibility of proving a negative as evidence.

However, between the shots of a pistol prior to the rifle fire on the Kent State tapes and the staging of the Waco Raid by the dumbfucks in the BATFE as a funding stunt, as well as the disappearing door and evidence tapes from the FBI on the day of the assault on the compound after they took over from the BATFE, the idea that the government was not wholly responsible for the deaths that occurred in those two incidents is absurd.

I don't know much about Waco, but this shots of a pistol prior to the rifle thing has me confused. Why does a pistol being fired implicate the government?

And why are you so angry? Your language and attitude here have been rather hostile considering nothing has even happened yet. Who do you think is going to find your words persuasive or even sensible when they're so clearly generated from this sort of unrestrained spitefulness?

I see these stats for my hometown (buffalo, NY) and I just want to cry.

There was a documentary called Nickel City Smile about some refugees who fled to Buffalo, and how they were shocked that this city was WORSE than their third world country homecity.

But hey, we have amazing food and cheap, beautiful old houses.....that counts for something right?

right?

I'm about a 45 minute drive away from Flint, MI. My mom grew up there, actually. Cruising through that place... it's just downright depressing. There are more boarded up buildings than there are open ones. Trash everywhere. I once saw a smoking tree stump... not sure what that was about. It scares me to think that the rest of the country is following this pattern and may soon end up like Flint.

I sort of lost track of the thread, so this may be sort of off topic. How is America doing inland?

I heard that suburbs would be the new slums of the 21rst century due to the lack of proper infrastructure. Something along the lines that since you need to take a long drive to get anywhere and there's no good mass transit, you're pretty stuck in one place and it's difficult to get a job beyond a certain radius.

I could just be talking nonsense though, so is it true? Is this Flint's problem, or is it something else entirely?

Frission:I sort of lost track of the thread, so this may be sort of off topic. How is America doing inland?

I heard that suburbs would be the new slums of the 21rst century due to the lack of proper infrastructure. Something along the lines that since you need to take a long drive to get anywhere and there's no good mass transit, you're pretty stuck in one place and it's difficult to get a job beyond a certain radius.

I could just be talking nonsense though, so is it true? Is this Flint's problem, or is it something else entirely?

Mass transit could definitely be part of the issue but I don't think it's even remotely on the level that you're describing.

Flint's problem is that the city was basically built around one business - General Motors. GM cars were built mostly in Flint, and people who worked at those factories moved to Flint.

When GM decided to ship production overseas to save money, people fled Flint in droves. Some stayed, but the local economy just tanked.

So the whole "dey took our jerbs" joke on South Park... that's one of the few jokes that's quite misguided. Foreign outsourcing, at least in the case of General Motors and Flint, Michigan in the 1980's, destroyed a LOT of lives, and TO THIS VERY DAY the city has not even begun to recover.

It's a bigger problem that people realize. They just want to joke about it, but Flint should stand as a foreboding example of what happens when American companies shut down local production and ship it all overseas.

Next time someone says "Buy American" and you roll your eyes at them... go take a drive through Flint and count the number of abandoned houses. Try to realize that those houses were once homes to people who thought they had a future in Flint, but lost everything when GM pulled out and outsourced most of its production.